Whenever a low status male gets angry at the foid-bloodsuckers who oppress him, a critique that I often see applied to him is that "to care about women so much is beta, alphas don't even care that much about women!"
This argument is absurd for obvious reasons. "Alphas" have an abundance of foids who sustain them, and to impugn the masculinity of someone who is suffering from sexual deprivation for not having the same abundance-attitude towards foids that Chad does is clearly a bad faith argument.
It is meant to make low status males ashamed for responding to the realities of their own immiseration, and instead get them to cargo cult as Chad in a form of aspirational insanity, without any of the benefits of being Chad, thus defusing their radicalism and protecting the foid-Chad cartel.
It is very similar to poor people who are brainwashed into voting for "conservatives" and idolizing capitalism. They get none of the benefits of capitalism, but delude themselves into thinking they are just like billionaires because they "work hard" and lavishly spend money on consumer goods. This is severely misguided because, just like Chad vis-à-vis betas, billionaires do not actually work hard, and they only seem to not care much about what they have for the simple reason that they have plenty of it. It is like air to them. And whereas a beta goes into debt chasing a dream he cannot have, Chad inherits all of it.
Also relevant here is the conceit of omega-males who say that they are just like Chad for not suffering at the hands of women, and can go about life with the same nonchalance. While it may be a good cope to be cynical and spurn the hardships of conformity, and to think that Alexander the Great and Diogenes are on the same level, this sort of alienation and withdrawal from the world of struggle only serves to perpetuate the system that oppresses us, rather than challenge it in the ultimate attempt to overthrow it.
This argument is absurd for obvious reasons. "Alphas" have an abundance of foids who sustain them, and to impugn the masculinity of someone who is suffering from sexual deprivation for not having the same abundance-attitude towards foids that Chad does is clearly a bad faith argument.
It is meant to make low status males ashamed for responding to the realities of their own immiseration, and instead get them to cargo cult as Chad in a form of aspirational insanity, without any of the benefits of being Chad, thus defusing their radicalism and protecting the foid-Chad cartel.
It is very similar to poor people who are brainwashed into voting for "conservatives" and idolizing capitalism. They get none of the benefits of capitalism, but delude themselves into thinking they are just like billionaires because they "work hard" and lavishly spend money on consumer goods. This is severely misguided because, just like Chad vis-à-vis betas, billionaires do not actually work hard, and they only seem to not care much about what they have for the simple reason that they have plenty of it. It is like air to them. And whereas a beta goes into debt chasing a dream he cannot have, Chad inherits all of it.
Also relevant here is the conceit of omega-males who say that they are just like Chad for not suffering at the hands of women, and can go about life with the same nonchalance. While it may be a good cope to be cynical and spurn the hardships of conformity, and to think that Alexander the Great and Diogenes are on the same level, this sort of alienation and withdrawal from the world of struggle only serves to perpetuate the system that oppresses us, rather than challenge it in the ultimate attempt to overthrow it.
Last edited:
